SEO

Hi,

Question: Can one machine act as both the primary and secondary DNS for a
domain?
Senario: I have just installed Fedora Core 5 (Following the howtoforge
perfect setup as
I am new to linux). The machine will be used as a web server,
ftp server and
dns server for my personal domains (About 15 domains) and
educational purposes.

I am aware that if my machine is down everything goes down but since my
sites are hosted
on the same machine it makes little difference, and they are personal sites
anyway

Is there perhaps a tutorial/howto/guide that explains how this can be done?

Any help is most appreciated.

Wayne.

On 2006-06-28, Wayne <wayne@somedomain.com> wrote:
> Question: Can one machine act as both the primary and secondary DNS for a
> domain?

Sure he can, but what's the point of doing so? The idea of having two
DNSes is because if the first is down the second can take up the job, if
both are on the same system... the primary DNS is the only mandatory one, then
you can have as many as you like.

Davide

--
General Protection Fault! [ Ignore ] [ Reboot ] [ Install Linux ]
-- From a Slashdot.org post

Hi Davide,

The reason I would need to run two is that the domain registrar for (co.za)
domain names requires two DNS servers.

The fact that it all goes down (primary and secondary) doesnt matter much
because the sites are hosted on the same machine as the primary anyway.
(And its purely my personal sites).

Wayne.

"Davide Bianchi" <davideyeahsure@onlyforfun.net> wrote in message
news:slrnea4ic8.1bf.davideyeahsure@wrom.onlyforfun .net...
> On 2006-06-28, Wayne <wayne@somedomain.com> wrote:
> > Question: Can one machine act as both the primary and secondary DNS for
a
> > domain?
>
> Sure he can, but what's the point of doing so? The idea of having two
> DNSes is because if the first is down the second can take up the job, if
> both are on the same system... the primary DNS is the only mandatory one,
then
> you can have as many as you like.
>
> Davide
>
> --
> General Protection Fault! [ Ignore ] [ Reboot ] [ Install Linux ]
> -- From a Slashdot.org post

Davide Bianchi wrote:
> On 2006-06-28, Wayne <wayne@somedomain.com> wrote:
>> Question: Can one machine act as both the primary and secondary DNS
>> for a domain?
>
> Sure he can, but what's the point of doing so? The idea of having two
> DNSes is because if the first is down the second can take up the job,
> if
> both are on the same system... the primary DNS is the only mandatory
> one, then you can have as many as you like.

You put the second one on a different IP address with a different network
card, so if you lose one connection you still have the other. You also use
it to test out your setups, until you can get a second DNS server.

In comp.os.linux.setup Wayne <wayne@somedomain.com>:

> "Davide Bianchi" <davideyeahsure@onlyforfun.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnea4ic8.1bf.davideyeahsure@wrom.onlyforfun .net...
>> On 2006-06-28, Wayne <wayne@somedomain.com> wrote:
>> > Question: Can one machine act as both the primary and secondary DNS for
> a
>> > domain?
>>
>> Sure he can, but what's the point of doing so? The idea of having two
>> DNSes is because if the first is down the second can take up the job, if
>> both are on the same system... the primary DNS is the only mandatory one,
> then
>> you can have as many as you like.

> Hi Davide,

> The reason I would need to run two is that the domain registrar for (co.za)
> domain names requires two DNS servers.

> The fact that it all goes down (primary and secondary) doesnt matter much
> because the sites are hosted on the same machine as the primary anyway.
> (And its purely my personal sites).

It's generally a good idea two have an secondary off-site DNS, as
well as off site backup MX entry. What about mail for the domain?

The MTA might still be up even if your web server is down, or you
backup MX should just jump in. Ask your ISP, he might offer this
service for his customer more or less for free.

Think about that an error not reaching some http server because
it is down doesn't look as distracting as if the domain isn't
resolvable. Some people might not mention the difference others
might not come back because even DNS doesn't work.

I'd rethink your position.

Good luck

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 309: firewall needs cooling

On 2006-06-28, Wayne <wayne@somedomain.com> wrote:
>
> The reason I would need to run two is that the domain registrar for (co.za)
> domain names requires two DNS servers.
>
> The fact that it all goes down (primary and secondary) doesnt matter much
> because the sites are hosted on the same machine as the primary anyway.

It doesn't matter much to you, but obviously it matters to your
registrar.

There are a few free secondary DNS providers that will provide this
service for you. There are even a few that will provide full primary
and secondary (or master/slave, depending on the terminology you want to
use) DNS for you, too. Google will help you find these providers.

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
see X- headers for PGP signature information

Michael Heiming wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.setup Wayne <wayne@somedomain.com>:
>
>> "Davide Bianchi" <davideyeahsure@onlyforfun.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnea4ic8.1bf.davideyeahsure@wrom.onlyforfun .net...
>>> On 2006-06-28, Wayne <wayne@somedomain.com> wrote:
>>>> Question: Can one machine act as both the primary and secondary DNS for
>> a
>>>> domain?
>>> Sure he can, but what's the point of doing so? The idea of having two
>>> DNSes is because if the first is down the second can take up the job, if
>>> both are on the same system... the primary DNS is the only mandatory one,
>> then
>>> you can have as many as you like.
>
>> Hi Davide,
>
>> The reason I would need to run two is that the domain registrar for (co.za)
>> domain names requires two DNS servers.
>
>> The fact that it all goes down (primary and secondary) doesnt matter much
>> because the sites are hosted on the same machine as the primary anyway.
>> (And its purely my personal sites).
>
> It's generally a good idea two have an secondary off-site DNS, as
> well as off site backup MX entry. What about mail for the domain?
>
> The MTA might still be up even if your web server is down, or you
> backup MX should just jump in. Ask your ISP, he might offer this
> service for his customer more or less for free.
>
> Think about that an error not reaching some http server because
> it is down doesn't look as distracting as if the domain isn't
> resolvable. Some people might not mention the difference others
> might not come back because even DNS doesn't work.
>
> I'd rethink your position.
>
> Good luck
>
There seems to be a considerable confusion in the thread between DNS,
and 'name servers'.

The OP is talking about DNS whilst obviously referring to 'name
servers'. DNS is the Domain Name System - it resolves name queries to IP
addresses - that's what it does. 'Name servers' are sat at the other end
of the chain - they provide the IP addresses - they hold the MX entries,
etc., when queried via the downward hierarchical Domain Name System, a
'name server' will (if it exists) eventually be found to supply the IP
address matching the query, enabling IP datagrams to be routed.

My li'l old P-III 450 is sat there quite content running BIND, and
resolving all my DNS queries for me - I don't recall ever putting any MX
records in there...

....because all the domains that I deal with are hosted in a proper
facility. Why on earth would OP ever want to host *anything* on his own
machine? Where I host (for multiple domains, at about $25 per month) has
four 155Mbps connections, each with a different supplier - how much
would that cost OP?

Sorry to pick you up on that Michael - I normally find your replies to
be amongst the most informative and polite on any of the newsgroups
where I might be lurking

Steve

In comp.os.linux.setup SadOldGit <sog@linux.bogus>:
> Michael Heiming wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.setup Wayne <wayne@somedomain.com>:
>>
>>> "Davide Bianchi" <davideyeahsure@onlyforfun.net> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnea4ic8.1bf.davideyeahsure@wrom.onlyforfun .net...
>>>> On 2006-06-28, Wayne <wayne@somedomain.com> wrote:

>>>>> Question: Can one machine act as both the primary and secondary DNS for
[..]

>> It's generally a good idea two have an secondary off-site DNS, as
>> well as off site backup MX entry. What about mail for the domain?
>>
>> The MTA might still be up even if your web server is down, or you
>> backup MX should just jump in. Ask your ISP, he might offer this
>> service for his customer more or less for free.
>>
>> Think about that an error not reaching some http server because
>> it is down doesn't look as distracting as if the domain isn't
>> resolvable. Some people might not mention the difference others
>> might not come back because even DNS doesn't work.
>>
>> I'd rethink your position.
>>
>> Good luck
>>
> There seems to be a considerable confusion in the thread between DNS,
> and 'name servers'.

No there isn't. ;-)

> The OP is talking about DNS whilst obviously referring to 'name
> servers'. DNS is the Domain Name System - it resolves name queries to IP
> addresses - that's what it does. 'Name servers' are sat at the other end
> of the chain - they provide the IP addresses - they hold the MX entries,
> etc., when queried via the downward hierarchical Domain Name System, a
> 'name server' will (if it exists) eventually be found to supply the IP
> address matching the query, enabling IP datagrams to be routed.

> My li'l old P-III 450 is sat there quite content running BIND, and
> resolving all my DNS queries for me - I don't recall ever putting any MX
> records in there...

As you are just running it as standalone or forwarding DNS
server. A name server can run in this mode or/and be
primary/secondary for one ore multiple domains. Just how you
configured it.

> ...because all the domains that I deal with are hosted in a proper
> facility. Why on earth would OP ever want to host *anything* on his own
> machine? Where I host (for multiple domains, at about $25 per month) has

Why not, if you are already authoritative for some domain say
sadoldgit.com you can just configure a new host
"linux.sadoldgit.com" into your dns server and it should be
resolvable from everywhere. So you can setup things faster if you
are running your own authoritative DNS servers, instead of asking
your ISP doing things for you.

> four 155Mbps connections, each with a different supplier - how much
> would that cost OP?

> Sorry to pick you up on that Michael - I normally find your replies to
> be amongst the most informative and polite on any of the newsgroups
> where I might be lurking

Thx and no problem. Albeit it seems you are a little confused how
DNS works. The DNS howto (www.tldp.org) should have more
information about the matter.

Good luck

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 331: those damn raccoons!

SadOldGit wrote:

> ...because all the domains that I deal with are hosted in a proper
> facility. Why on earth would OP ever want to host *anything* on his own
> machine? Where I host (for multiple domains, at about $25 per month) has
> four 155Mbps connections, each with a different supplier - how much
> would that cost OP?
>
DNS servers - name servers - are among the least bandwidth hungry and
bandwidth intensive servers you can mount. When I ran a hosting service,
the oldest and slowest machines were relegated to use as name servers.

There are very GOOD reason to have the locally, if you have to do a lot
of changes to them..like being able to access the machine if it goes
wrong. Remote versus local hosting is a simple and direct cost benefit
analysis with low cost per unit bandwidth at the ISP hub site trading
off against low cost per unit installation and service visit with a
local server.

With the bandwidth being so low, it comes out firmly in favour of local.
However the whole point of a secondary server is to be there if the main
one fails. Having it on the same machine completely defeats the object.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> SadOldGit wrote:
>
>> ...because all the domains that I deal with are hosted in a proper
>> facility. Why on earth would OP ever want to host *anything* on his own
>> machine? Where I host (for multiple domains, at about $25 per month) has
>> four 155Mbps connections, each with a different supplier - how much
>> would that cost OP?
>>
> DNS servers - name servers - are among the least bandwidth hungry and
> bandwidth intensive servers you can mount. When I ran a hosting service,
> the oldest and slowest machines were relegated to use as name servers.
>

Yes Michael, but you still don't distinguish between DNS servers that
seek an IP address in response to a query, and 'Name servers' that
actually provide the response.

> There are very GOOD reason to have the locally

What are we talking here DNS resolvers or 'Name servers' with MX
records, etc?

Not at all the same thing.

, if you have to do a lot
> of changes to them..like being able to access the machine if it goes
> wrong. Remote versus local hosting is a simple and direct cost benefit
> analysis with low cost per unit bandwidth at the ISP hub site trading
> off against low cost per unit installation and service visit with a
> local server.
> With the bandwidth being so low, it comes out firmly in favour of local.
> However the whole point of a secondary server is to be there if the main
> one fails. Having it on the same machine completely defeats the object.
>